


MANA 





SRO TENET 


WSS 








SEK 

















ry Ai 


<a omega 












































' 
ARTF MINCE, 
oct 20 1925 






2 ‘ 
EOL agicut sev 


My ube } 
Pap See ont 


OE IE 


+ AS be RAE 
x Tete an at 
AR mY 


a) 


PLR ede 
Ma 


: 


ars 





wy Ww ‘ , oy) 7 
nis Neue ¢ F rae ‘i a 
‘ ee } } ,' ne Dat, 


* 
\ i 
pA f Pes, 
i mA 
: 


4 





<Sd OF PRINGES > 
OCT 201925 






AND MODERNISTS 


ny 


C. J. SODERGREN 


a 


ROCK ISLAND, ILL. 
AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN 


Printed in the United States of America. 


« 


ROCH ISLAND, ILLINOIS 
AUGUSTANA BOOK CONCERN, PRINTERS AND BINDERS 


1925 


<‘There are, it may be, so many kinds 
of voices in the world, and no kind is 


without signification.”? Z Cor. 74:70. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


I. INTRODUCTION. 

Pete TIOTOGIANS AMG: HCTIVOS |. Ss cm tncrnie 6 acerca se 
BLO 7. EATING A ahs fais. ust: Say dation ANE Moc aa 

See IS POMC OP ORS Te ao. aches: ara cee pines nee ata aes 

II. DISCUSSION. 

ae ie OND AMEMEALISTRS ial. ahr saie oye u's Nea ohare Ate o Whe cer 
Le hie Erde) Muna MeNtALiSts «sibs. < aca « s ehecenane 
2. The Pseudo-Fundamentalists .............. 
BeeCHrintinn’ WOCkrina,. cece ey tie oie seas 

Aird TELAAMOE Reece ot Asie Phat. Wate oe | f ptavee BOS GX 

SAE We Pong UAT Vis Se CRRA Sg pine aie BON eA eRe ee 

Gwe CTIpeEUre sLUUSCTACIONS ca %sahec'> exw miaia os shea ohe 
Pee Meee NIONOUMICAL TASS Saou. ca ear ee hs 

SUP DIL pla ly er aDOCE VG Ee vac aie oe. ine Un hints we 

Dime TOLTESSIVE -ROVelAtlOni si . 6 365 haces le cle ees 

_ 10. ECliewmlcrvand COe BIDlGsi . ohne On oy aos eidedial 
pebimeito, Need. Gir GUOaRCe chaste lw eaten a eons 
Roe e ERM LORI EIST TNs ft as aera ta Wialste s, Mala aves (pai al acacven orate Boe 
fy AN Ee ES eek Uy a a EN Anas, an ee OTE 

ek aU CISL TW IES Gh eG te TD ee vie ood ww PRRs 
Sc) Se Ve LUA > UVIEI C25 ciara ast Clk ele ate dea tities leneievg: (ie 

er eR AY CRE EMVLELL METAR 2a tat hits (Rally chara ia eed ainca last dts 
fe EERE INDOOR lic a5 oy nis cha is aout sides bre elite « 
Pee OM OID Seacraey tiene aide coke ee aly eine Woe ee 


PAGE 





I. INTRODUCTION. 


N THE days of Christ there were two promi- 
nent religious parties, the Pharisees and the 
Sadducees. 

The Herodians were a political party. They 
were the supporters of the dynasty of Herod and 
therefore the professional ‘‘patriots” of the day. 
They were closely allied commercially with the 
Sadducees, the great financiers of Jerusalem. 
Because they realized in Jesus a foe of their 
political aims and money revenues, they made 
common cause with the Pharisees to crush Him. 
They found it impossible to tolerate His infringe- 
ment of the vested rights of the merchants and 
bankers in the temple courts. We are therefore 
not surprised to find them figuring with this pow- 
erful party in the attempt to entrap Him in the 
matter of tribute to Cesar (Mk. 12. 18). 

The scribes were a professional guild. They 
were the “Doctors,” or Teachers of the Law. In 
modern terminology they were the theological 


7 


& FUNDAMENTALISTS 


professors of the Jewish Church. In Mt. 18. 52 
Jesus uses the title in a favorable sense. Ordi- 
narily they took no part in public affairs outside 
of their special vocation, but devoted themselves 
to the study and exposition of the Scriptures. 
Their chief concern was to safeguard the ortho- 
dox doctrine, which, however, they amplified and 
embellished with innovations in a most arbitrary 
manner. “Orthodox” therefore gradually came 
to mean their own interpretations and personal 
opinions, largely determined by individuals of 
recognized authority in their schools. They were 
concerned, not so much with Scripture itself, as 
with what might be called their “Book of Con- 
cord,” and, again, not so much with their body of 
doctrine, as with the generally accepted and tra- 
ditional interpretation of these confessions. It 
was this latter interpretation which became the 
“heavy and grievous burdens” which they bound 
and laid on men’s shoulders (Mt. 23. 4). On any 
subject whatsoever, social, political, scientific, or 
religious, the fact that these rabbis said so and 
so was decisive and final. “An offence,” they 
taught, “against the sayings of the scribes is 
worse than one against those of Scripture” (Sanh. 
XI. 3). Their students had only two duties: to 
retain everything faithfully in their memory; and 
never to teach otherwise, even in expression, than 


AND MODERNISTS 9 


they had been taught. We also know the inordi- 
nate vanity of the profession and what sticklers 
they were about being properly addressed as 
“Rabbi.” In Mk. 12. 38 Jesus singles them out 
as an object of warning. ‘Beware of the scribes, 
who desire to walk in long robes, and to have 
salutations in the marketplaces, and chief seats 
in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts” (Lk. 
20. 46). 


THE PHARISEES. 


The Pharisees were the party of the funda- 
mentalists and literalists, in a derogatory sense. 
They were not “‘hypocrites” of the type we usually 
associate with the name, but a group of spiritual 
leaders, properly designated as “legalistic pie- 
tists,” quite sincere in their faith, and driven into 
dissembling only by their reactionary attitude 
toward Jesus and by the alternative with which 
He confronted them and which they refused to 
accept. In this they were entirely consistent, be- 
cause from their point of view He was a rank 
liberalist of the order that ‘“‘hath denied the faith 
and is worse than an infidel.” That is, they were 
sincerely false. They believed that they alone were 
in the right. They believed in the Bible. They 
were orthodox in doctrine. They were staunch 
defenders of the faith. The theology elaborated 


10 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


by their theologians was in their opinion infalli- 
ble. It could never be altered. On anything that 
seemed to threaten its foundations they turned 
with swift resentment. Woe unto the man who 
as much as questioned the tradition of the elders 
or doubted their interpretation! 

History has proven them to be in the wrong. 
They themselves were unable to see it. The rea- 
son was that they mistook the form for the sub- 
stance. They clung to a dead body and did not 
notice that its spirit had fled. They were too 
conservative to leave the old camping ground and 
follow the pillar of cloud and fire a stage nearer 
the promised land. Consequently they kept their 
faces stolidly and stubbornly fixed toward the 
cherished past. And when prophets sent from 
God urged them to ascend the mountain heights 
of a fuller revelation, they turned on them and 
rent them. Of course they went through the for- 
mality of heresy trials, but this was mere pre- 
tence. They were agreed on the verdict in 
advance. 

The observance of the Sabbath, for instance, 
must be kept at all costs, according to their own 
strictly literal interpretation and detailed appli- 
cation of the commandment. If it happened to 
be honored in the breach by Christ Himself or by 
some healed paralytic, they promptly condemned 


AND MODERNISTS 11 


these non-conformists as “sinners” and went 
serenely on tithing mint and anise and cummin, 
leaving undone the weightier matters of the law, 
namely, justice, mercy, and faith. And if some 
Nicodemus in their own circle or a restored blind 
man presumed to question the wisdom of their 
policies or the justice of their course, he was 
promptly “bawled out” or thrown out. 

While professing to honor the prophets of the 
past, they proved their “false sincerity” by per- 
secuting the new prophets. For such a religion 
is always harsh and cruel. Partly because a faith 
that is a matter of the head, and not of the heart 
and life, is always merciless and ruthless when 
opposed or crossed. Partly because it feels in- 
secure and afraid, and finds it expedient to safe- 
guard its interests by hard-headed and hard- 
hearted diplomacy. Accordingly, to effect their 
ends they took the short-cut of force — legal or 
physical. The smoldering fire which subcon- 
sciously inspired their tactics and finally burst 
into open flame appears in the policy adopted 
toward Christ and His followers. ‘Behold, I 
send unto you prophets, and wise men, and 
scribes; some of them shall ye kill and crucify; 
and some of them shall ye scourge in your syna- 
gogues, and persecute from city to city” (Mt. 23. 
24). “And they watched him, and sent forth 


12 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


spies, who feigned themselves to he righteous, 
that they might take hold of his speech, so as to 
deliver him up to the rule and the authority of 
the governor” (Lk. 20. 20). “And when he came 
out from thence, the scribes and the Pharisees 
began to press upon him vehemently, and to pro- 
voke him to speak of many things, laying wait 
for him, to catch something out of his mouth” 
(Lk. 11. 53). “‘Thou wast altogether born in sins, 
and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out” 
(Jn. 9.34). “This man ceaseth not to speak 
words against this holy place, and the law... . 
They cried out with a loud voice, and. stopped 
their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; 
and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him” 
(Acts 6. 13; 7. 57, 58). 

There was indeed a prophet whom they did not 
persecute openly. But the motive is well ex- 
pressed by themselves, “All the people will stone 
us, for they are persuaded that John was a 
prophet” (Lk. 20. 6). 

Meanwhile they were persuaded that they had 
the truth. So why should they trouble themselves 
with listening to “heresy”? And if occasionally 
a ray of light pierced the armor of their preju- 
dice, they were keen enough to see that it was 
impossible to incorporate it with their old system 
of doctrine and therefore they carefully excluded 


AND MODERNISTS a3 


it. To change their attitude would have meant a 
radical spiritual change and a violent intellectual 
revolution to which they were not equal. They 
had no desire for the new wine. They said, The 
old is good (Lk. 5. 39). Because they were un- 
dergoing spiritual atrophy they refused to con- 
sider the proposition that Jesus might be right 
and they wrong. The case was closed to argu- 
ment. 

To doubt that they were in possession of the 
truth was to jeopardize Scripture, the Church, 
the temple, the nation, their institutions, their 
standing, and all the interests of the established 
religion. Hence they felt perfectly warranted in 
shutting their minds to everything that might 
tend to undermine the traditions and unsettle 
their own persuasions. For the same reason they 
also considered it perfectly legitimate to resort 
to extreme measures in dealing with individual 
“apostles of heresy.” Indeed they had no other 
choice if they were to save themselves and their 
theology. So they adopted the policy of forcible 
repression, and with a perfectly good conscience. 
“They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, 
the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall 
think he offereth service unto God” (Jn. 16. 2). 
Those who refused to submit to their authority 


14 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


they excommunicated, branded as “sinners,” and 
thanked God they were not like them. 

There were moreover good reasons for their 
complacency. Among their number we find such 
noble characters as a Nicodemus, a Joseph of 
Arimathea, a Gamaliel, and especially a Saul, who 
could say of himself, “As touching the righteous- 
ness which is in the law, found blameless” (Phil. 
3. 6). As stated above, they were strict in the 
observance of the Sabbath, in tithing themselves, 
and in fasting, even going beyond the require- 
ments of the law. They were imbued with a fiery 
missionary zeal. Not indeed to make converts to 
Judaism, but to make proselytes to their own 
“denomination.” What Jesus thought of this kind 
of missionary enterprise is recorded in Mt. 28. 15. 
They believed in the immortality of the soul, in 
angels, in the resurrection of the body, and in 
future retribution. They believed in the speedy 
coming of the Messiah through the air. No doubt 
Satan had this popular theology in mind when he 
suggested to Jesus that He cast Himself down 
from the pinnacle of the temple and so appear to 
the people as if dropping down out of heaven. 
They looked for His literal reign upon the earth 
in Jerusalem. His kingdom was to be a kingdom 
of the saints, and they were the saints. He was 
to deliver them from the power of the Gentiles, 


AND MODERNISTS 15 


especially the Romans, and He was to thrust out 
the sinners, Sadducees in particular, from the 
inheritance of God. 

All these materialistic notions they backed up 
with the Bible, and according to their baldly 
literal reading of prophecy they:were in the 
right. No one was able to dispute it. The possi- 
bility of a more spiritual insight into the Word 
of God simply did not occur to them. They knew. 
And yet the sad fact remains that when their 
Messiah did appear, they failed to recognize Him. 
The Spirit of God had departed from a dying 
Church, spiritual vision was only a memory and 
a name, faith had lost its sight, and so they 
stared at divine truths with the bovine gaze of 
the natural man, seeing only words. 

All sources present the Pharisees to us as a 
distinct “church within the Church.” They did 
not separate themselves from the Jewish com- 
munity in doctrine, and they worshiped with their 
fellow-countrymen in the temple and in the syna- 
gogues, but they kept aloof from social intercourse 
with the “worldly” mass of the people to avoid the 
risk of being defiled by the less scrupulous. They 
considered themselves as the real Israelites, Israel 
according to the spirit, while the common people 
were the ’am ha’ arez, the vulgar herd. We recall 
the fault they found with Jesus because of His 


16 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


friendly intercourse with publicans and sinners. 
This was enough to condemn Him in their sight. 
He in turn said to them, ‘‘Woe unto you, Phari- 
sees! for ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, 
and pass over justice and the love of God” (Lk. 
11. 42). And to His disciples He said, “Beware 
ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypoc- 
Fisys) CUked 221): 


THE SADDUCEES. 


The Sadducees were the liberalists and ration- 
alists of that day. As such they were cordially 
hated by the Pharisees, and the former recipro- 
cated by thoroughly despising the latter. Accord- 
ing to Josephus they accepted the entire Old 
Testament, and not the Pentateuch only. But 
this did not prevent them from playing fast and 
loose with the Scriptures. In fact they were 
largely indifferent to religion, except as a matter 
of curious interest, custom, means of preferment, 
and source of revenue. The tradition of the 
elders, to which the Pharisees attached supreme 
importance, the Sadducees disregarded entirely. 
They rejected the literal interpretation of proph- 
ecy. They denied the providence of God and 
maintained that man was the master of his des- 
tiny and the sole author of his own happiness or 
misery. They denied the existence of angels and 


AND MODERNISTS 17 


spirits, the resurrection of the dead, and future 
rewards and punishments. And they had scant 
sympathy with the Pharisees in their Messianic 
anticipations. 

All this stamped them in the eyes of the people 
as sceptics and infidels. Their pride and callous- 
ness of heart made them still more unpopular, 
while the Pharisees were held in high regard. The 
reason why Jesus directed His rebukes mainly 
against the scribes and Pharisees, and said so 
little about the Sadducees, was no doubt due to 
the insignificant influence of the latter in religious 
matters. And in the final combined attack on 
Him the Sadducees were doubtless influenced less 
by religious zeal than by the natural fear that a 
messianic movement might result in disastrous 
political consequences. When on one occasion they 
approached Him on the question of the resurrec- 
tion, we notice the spirit of levity and their pat- 
ronizing contempt for Him by adducing the ex- 
ample of the woman who had had seven husbands 
(Mts22- 25): 

The leaders among the priests, especially those 
of the highpriestly family, all belonged to the 
party of the Sadducees. They were the clerical 
aristocrats, at the same time that they were 
frankly irreligious. It was the Sadducees who 
carried on the traffic in the temple which yielded 


18 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


such handsome profits to lessors and lessees alike. 
They were closely allied with the Roman govern- 
ment and were leaders in the Hellenizing of Pales- 
tine. After the resurrection of Jesus they were 
the main instigators of the persecution against 
the apostles and their followers. Jesus combines 
them with the Pharisees in the warning to His 
disciples, ‘“Take heed and beware of the leaven 
of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Mt. 16. 6). 
There was no Pharisee, Sadducee, Herodian, or 
scribe, among the Twelve.* 


The reason for the existence of these parties, 
and especially the spirit which inspired them, was 
the spiritual decline and general decay which 
marked the end of that age. They were desperate 
attempts at a solution of the problems created by 
the dissolution of the old order. Each party 
trusted to its own panacea for curing the ills of 
the times. But as the leaders were treating symp- 
toms instead of the deeply seated disease, things 
went steadily from bad to worse. God had more- 
over “judged” — discarded —the past and was 
displacing it with a new dispensation. Hence all 
efforts proved unavailing. Their final attempt to 
save themselves, the church, the nation, was the 
crucifixion of Christ. Following hard upon this 





* For further information see various monographs on these parties, 
and the respective articles in the encyclopedias. 


AND MODERNISTS 19 


summary rejection of their only hope, these par- 
ties renewed the old feud, growing ever more 
hostile and bitter against each other, till their 
internecine war in the siege of Jerusalem broke 
down all resistance, delivered the city into the 
hands of the enemy, and buried them all in the 
smoking heap of its ruins. 


20 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


II. DISCUSSION. 


HE signs of our own times indicate the ap- 
proach of a similar situation. The rarer 
spirits in our midst who sense the invisible under- 
tow in both Church and State are unanimous in 
the conviction that we are drawing near the end 
of another dispensation. Symptomatic of the 
change are corresponding movements, rapidly 
crystallizing into parallel religious parties. Two 
main groups are assuming definite shape, already 
characterized by name as Fundamentalists and 
Modernists. The following pages are an attempt 
to analyze these aggregations, with the purpose of 
assisting the reader to get his bearings and enable 
him, if possible, to direct his course through shift- 
ing winds across a rising sea. 


A. THE FUNDAMENTALISTS. 


There is an almost infinite variety of these. In 
the nature of the case it is impossible to define 
them. And yet the importance of making at least 
approximate distinctions is becoming more and 
more evident. One of the main reasons for the 


AND MODERNISTS 21 


present contribution is a growing realization that 
the frequent failure to discriminate properly here 
is a fertile cause of much unnecessary distress of 
mind and many preventable tragedies. In spirit 
and tendency, however, there is discernible a 
Right and a Left, and it will suffice for our im- 
mediate purpose to divide them into these two 
groups. 


THE TRUE FUNDAMENTALISTS. 


This group adheres to the foundation doctrines 
of the Christian religion as revealed in the Word 
of God. In this sense every true Christian is a 
fundamentalist, and can be nothing else, as these 
doctrines are the source and content of a saving 
faith. 

Among these fundamental doctrines are the fol- 
lowing: the existence of a personal Triune God, 
the Creator of heaven and earth; the Deity of 
Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; His atonement for 
sin by a sinless obedience unto death; regenera- 
tion by faith in Him alone as our vicarious sacri- 
fice; His literal resurrection; His second coming; 
the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church; the 
divine inspiration of the Old and New Testa- 
ments; the reality of heaven and hell; the resur- 
rection of the dead; the judgment of the quick 
and the dead. 


22 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


Certainly, a man may believe all these doctrines 
in his head and still be an unbeliever at heart. 
The mere fact that he gives intellectual assent to 
them and professes to accept them is therefore 
not fundamental. Faith is no mouthing of intel- 
lectual creeds. The main question is not, What do 
we believe? but, In whom do we believe? Not, Do 
we have this or that opinion about religious mat- 
ters? but, Do we believe (-lieve, lieben, love, trust) 
in Christ? To make five, or seven, or a hundred 
dogmas the object of faith, instead of a person, 
the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is a radical 
departure from the fundamentals of the Christian 
religion. The Gospel is not merely a gospel about 
Jesus and His teachings; it is the gospel of Jesus 
and the religion of a loving and adoring self-sur- 
render to Him. 

A faith that is the incarnation of revealed 
truth, translated into such a living trust, is not 
to be belittled; and those who cherish these fun- 
damental doctrines in their hearts and convert 
them into the obedience of faith are not to be 
lightly disparaged. 

They cannot be eliminated from consideration 
with impunity. Their voices cannot he safely 
disregarded. Their testimony must be taken into 
account and its message heeded if truth is what 
we desire. The genuine fundamentalist may be 


AND MODERNISTS 23 


sincerely wrong at times, but even so he merits 
neither abuse nor condescension. He may only 
need to realize that there “is more light yet to 
break out of the Word.” To ridicule the work of 
grace in the hearts of humble, sincere believers 
as a superstition, a delusion, or the work of the 
devil, is infamy itself. To scoff at beliefs, “held 
by sincere and noble men who have achieved 
noble and sacrificial lives, is to betray a narrow- 
ness quite unworthy of religious men. A cheap 
and easy scepticism has no healing for the woes 
of civilization. The ‘spirit that denies’ cannot 
rescue the broken world from its disillusion and 
despair. The so-called liberals have sometimes in- 
dulged in a scornful treatment of beliefs which 
have given millions victory over pain and grief 
and evil, and by such an attitude have strength- 
ened reactionary orthodoxy. Only great beliefs 
can be the foundation of great character. Only 
a positive faith can speak with authority and 
bring us permanent help” (W. H. P. Faunce). 

The spiritual instinct of these humble believers 
senses truth even where ideas and language may 
at times be at fault. The intuition of the spirit- 
ual-minded man is ever truer than all the reason 
and erudition of mere scholars. 

For this very reason the Fundamentalist also 
may need to be reminded that faith is not fur- 


24 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


thered merely by using a4 megaphone or by in- 
dulging in viciousness of spirit. Pounding heads 
with hard doctrines does not plant them in human 
hearts and make them fruitful in Christian lives. 
It is also well to learn what Jesus emphasized and 
to keep things in the same proportion. This is a 
safer course than to make a hobby of single doc- 
trines and to thrust them out into space in such 
a manner as to make them high vaulting-bars in- 
stead of inviting paths of peace. 

One of the truest representatives of this group 
among noted writers on the subject is A. J. Gresh- 
am Machen of Princeton. His latest work, ‘“‘Chris- © 
tianity and Liberalism,” will repay careful read- 
ing. 


THE PSEUDO-FUNDAMENTALISTS. 


This group of Fundamentalists is the spurious 
kind, which places an entirely unwarranted em- 
phasis on shibboleths not occurring in our accept- 
ed creeds, but which have seeped in from the out- 
side and which prove on examination to consist 
largely of “the commandments of men.” We have 
our authoritative formulas, based on the plain 
words of Scripture and accepted by the Church 
as the statement of its Christian faith. The other 
kind of would-be authority is derived from in- 
dividual teachers and a certain ill-defined general 


AND MODERNISTS 25 


consensus of opinion, which has grown into a 
body of ecclesiastical tradition. And this is the 
“orthodoxy,” which our pseudo-fundamentalists 
are riding like charging cavalry with drawn sa- 
bers, bent on destruction. 

Some of these doctrines are science falsely so 
called and are not dangerous, except as they may 
obstruct spiritual vision and smother budding 
faith. But some of them are also theological doc- 
trines, so intimately mixed by these fundamental- 
ists with our Canonical Symbols, that it often 
requires no little acumen and skill to disentangle 
them. And these are the more dangerous, as we 
are so easily deluded into accepting them, along 
with the authoritative teachings, as infallible and 
final. There are, for instance, certain theories of 
inspiration constructed and superimposed by in- 
dividual dogmaticians; a literal interpretation of 
the Bible so unspiritual as to shut out completely 
the Spirit of the living Christ; geometrical defini- 
tions of the Trinity which foist sheer polytheism 
on simple and unsuspecting minds; and Jewish 
conceptions of the Kingdom, past, present, and 
future, which tend to close the eyes of men to the 
expanding vistas of a truly prophetic perspective. 


26 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 

Our own doctrines say very little on Origins 
and Eschatology (First and Last Things). In 
this the Reformers showed their wisdom and their 
humility. In this reticence there is also a source 
of comfort for those who find themselves unable 
to accept every fancy and phantasy that floats 
along on the shifting winds of these latter days. 
That is, we find that we have a right to our Chris- 
tian profession, even when we must differ occa- 
sionally with some of our brethren and prefer to 
wait for more light, especially when we sense that 
some of their theories do not seem to harmonize 
with the mind and spirit of the Christ we have 
learned to know and love. 

“But you must believe the Bible.” Yes, and we 
do. Perhaps with a faith equally deep. But what 
these brothers mean is that we must accept their 
particular exposition of this, that, or the other 
Seripture passage. Therefore we feel free to ob- 
serve that we have an equal right to give a modi- 
fied answer at times to their “‘must”. We need to 
be on our guard against being made captives tc 
the opinion of men. It is one thing to “bring into 
captivity every thought to the obedience of 
Christ,” while “casting down imaginations and 
every high thing that exalteth itself against the 
knowledge of God.” But it is quite another thing 


AND MODERNISTS 27 


to allow faith itself to be bound hand and foot by 
religious “‘Fascisti,” or to be hounded by a group 
of zealots very much akin in spirit to the Ku Klux 
Klan. 

Even our Symbols profess to be only “witness- 
es.” In their own language, “Other writings 
(beside the Scriptures) of ancient or modern 
teachers, whatever reputation they may have, 
should not be regarded as of equal authority with 
the Holy Scriptures, but should altogether be sub- 
ordinated to them, and should not he received 
other or further than as witnesses as to in what 
manner and at what places, since the time of the 
apostles, the doctrine of the prophets was pre- 
served.” Again, “The other symbols and writings 
are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but 
only a witness and a declaration of the faith, as 
to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been 
understood and explained in articles in controver- 
sy in the Church of Christ, by those who then 
lived, and how the opposite dogma was rejected 
and condemned.” (Formula of Concord, Introd. 
1b and 3d). Truly liberal enough in matter and 
tone, and most refreshing in their spirit, while 
affording precious testimony to the truth as re- 
vealed to us by God in His sacred Word! 

The “hundred-percenters,” on the other hand, 
. wish to improve upon these witnesses by adding 


28 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


as of equal authority their own personal opinions 
and by means of these to keep us under the dou- 
ble guard of a “superior kind’ (?) of religious 
“patriotism.” But while we elect to exercise the 
freedom secured to us by the Protestant Reforma- 
tion and refuse to be dragged into the dungeons 
of a new Inquisition, God forbid that our liberty 
in Christ should prove to be the lawlessness of 
unbelief. May it prove to be instead a humble 
loyalty to the truth of His Word and to its glori- 
ous echo in the formulated doctrines of our 
Church, as this truth is accepted by Christian 
faith, proved by Christian experience, and coura- 
geously confessed in word and deed by Christian 
witnesses to its saving and transforming power! 


J UDAISERS. 


It may be of value to note in this connection 
that the spirit which actuates the Pseudo-Funda- 
mentalists with distressing frequency finds a 
rather remarkable prototype in the so-called 
Judaisers of the early Christian Church. These 
extremists originated in “certain of the sects of 
the Pharisees who believed.” For the most part 
these legalists were sincere believers in the Lord 
Jesus as the Messiah, and by no means the “hypo- 
crites” it might appear. They merely insisted on 
the traditional doctrines and demanded with the 


AND MODERNISTS 29 


fiery zeal of conviction that “it was needful to cir- 
cumcise them (the Gentile converts) and to 
charge them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 
15. 5). 

Impassioned zeal and the tone of authority are 
always impressive, and this enthusiasm and self- 
confidence on their part exerted such influence 
that several of the churches were brought to the 
verge of disruption. We get a glimpse of this 
spirit in 2 Cor. 10. 12, “For we (Paul) are not 
bold to number or compare ourselves with certain 
of them that commend themselves; but they them- 
selves, measuring themselves by themselves, and 
comparing themselves with themselves, are with- 
out understanding.” Their propaganda threat- 
ened a serious schism in the entire Church and 
finally made necessary the Apostolic Council in 
Jerusalem 50 A.D. But though the decree of this 
council included certain temporary concessions to 
the Jewish Christian “fundamentalists,” many of 
these reactionaries refused to accept the main 
conclusion of this ““Synodical Meeting.”’ They ac- 
cused Paul of being a rank ““liberalist,” a rene- 
gade and a traitor to his people and his God. They 
dogged his footsteps from city to city, disparaged 
his character, his apostolic authority, and his 
teaching. We recall how even Peter was intim- 
- idated by their presence in Antioch to compromise 


30 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


and dissemble, till he stood corrected by the open 
rebuke of his friend Paul (Gal. 2. 11). Even as 
late as the latter’s first imprisonment in Rome 
these Judaisers were in evidence and saddened his 
great heart by their machinations. By this time, 
however, he was confident that even the vexatious 
controversies which they occasioned and their 
“preaching Christ even of envy and strife” would 
serve to further the Gospel and issue in its final 
triumph (Phil. 1. 15-19). 

The intolerance and persecution evinced by the 
modern Pseudo-Fundamentalists, inhibits their 
usefulness. Sane men and women are becoming 
impatient with those who are so ready to consign 
to the flames those who do not agree with them 
in every particular. The attitude which says, 
“Disagree with me, and you are a crook,” is be- 
coming only to a “fuddlementalist.” The spirit 
of the following clipping for instance from “The 
Searchlight’ only invites the derision of fair- 
minded men: “$100 reward. The Searchlight is 
going to offer a reward. It will deposit in the 
bank a $100 cashier’s check to be given to a stu- 
dent of any denominational college in the south 
who will supply the Searchlight with evidence 
that modernism is taught in the school where the 
said student attends.” And the editor promises 
not to divulge the name of the student, so that the 


AND MODERNISTS 31 


informer may be kept immune to discipline. The 
number of “rewards” is limited to twenty. 

Such submarine attacks are poor policy, to say 
nothing of their “Christianity.” The following 
words of Dean Farrar are deserving of serious 
consideration in this connection: ‘‘The worst of 
all heresies in any Christian, and the heresy that 
Christ holds as most inexcusable, however com- 
monly and however bitterly it betrays itself in 
our controversies, is the heresy of hatred. If a 
man be animated by that spirit — be he the most 
dreaded champion of his shibboleth, the foremost 
fugleman of his party —if he be guilty of that 
heresy, his Christianity is heathenism, and his 
orthodoxy a cloak of error.” Usually too this 
“odium theologicum” is not the emphasis of con- 
viction, but of persuasion. Often enough, more- 
over, it is the vociferation of mere opinion, if not 
indeed the wrath of wounded egotism. Fortunate- 
ly only a special type is fitted for plying the ne- 
farious trade of religious detective and spy. All 
honest men will go on their way doing their daily 
duty, observing rather than aiding and abetting 
those who enjoy this form of ministration. 

We commend for further consideration the lan- 
guage of the twelve points reached by the Lan- 
guage School at Wu Fu Ssu, near Peking, China, 


- as follows: 


32 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


“1, I will always seek to discover the best and 
strongest points in my brother’s position. 2. I 
will give him credit for sincerity. 3. I will try 
to avoid classifying him and assuming that he has 
all the characteristics of the class to which he is 
supposed to belong. 4. I will emphasize our agree- 
ments. 5. When others criticise I will try to bring 
out favorable points. 6. When there is misunder- 
standing, either I of him, or he of me, I will go 
to him direct. 7. I will seek opportunities to pray 
together. 8. I will try to remember that I may 
be mistaken, and that God’s truth is too big for 
my mind. 9. I will never ridicule another’s faith. 
10. If I have been betrayed into criticising an- 
other, I will seek the first opportunity of finding 
out from himself if my criticism is just. 11. I will 
not listen to gossip and secondhand information. 
12. I will pray for anyone from whom I differ.” 


LITERALISM. 


A serious fault with the Pseudo-Fundamental- 
ists is their crassly literal understanding of the 
Scriptures. Professing to be spiritual-minded they 
seem to be strangely lacking in spiritual vision. 
If this kind of literalism is not actual materialism, 
it is certainly the vision of a one-eyed faith en- 
tirely sans vista. The gift of the Spirit should 
reveal the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2.14). For 


AND MODERNISTS 33 


that Spirit enables us to see that the thoughts of 
God cannot be fully expressed in human language 
and that the grammatical sense cannot exhaust 
His mind. Scripture is an unfathomable and in- 
finite ocean of truth, as inexhaustible as its divine 
Author. Only sheer blindness imagines that we 
can sound its depths with our short plummet. To 
limit its truth to our finite comprehension also 
looks like an effort to control it in a small fear 
that it may get beyond our own control, or like 
an attempt to make it a mere armory of texts to 
serve as weapons within our own ready reach for 
personal offense and defense. Such an attitude 
takes on the appearance of not being able to trust 
either God, His Word, or our fellow-Christians 
out of our sight and to have no faith in anything 
but our own little views and ingenious designs. 
He who draws a definite circle around a Scripture 
passage and sets up the sign “No Trespassing” 
only reveals his own serious limitations, both 
spiritually and mentally. He may need besides to 
be warned not to play the role of the dog in the 
manger. 

We Occidentals must remember that the lan- 
guage of the Bible is Oriental. God did not choose 
the superficial, prosy, matter-of-fact business 
tongue of the West. He elected to employ the 
| poetic, figurative, richly colored and musical lan- 


34 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


guage of the East. We intellectualistic “pale- 
faces’ sem to find it so impossible to view spiritual 
truth from any other angle than that of our rigid 
science and precise mathematics. And we are so 
amusingly conceited about it too. 

In limiting themselves, and in the efforts to 
limit others, to the first surface idea a word sug- 
gests, these brethren are most unfortunately 
identifying themselves with a theory of inspira- 
tion which has never been a part of the Christian 
faith, but which is originally only the doctrine 
of some spiritually near-sighted dogmaticians. 
The ancient creeds contain no reference’to such a 
view. Our later creeds say nothing about it. Yet 
many honest souls are being conscientiously led 
to believe that the Christian religion stands or 
falls with this theory. These teachers are no 
doubt inspired by the purest zeal, but this should 
not prevent them from pausing to consider wheth- 
er it is wise and kind to expose their disciples to 
the danger of losing their fatth when the theory 
collapses, as collapse it must when shaken by the 
seismic disturbances of actual findings by modern 
criticism. 

Assuredly what the Bible says is true. But the 
content is divine and eternal, and not merely tem- 
poral and human. It is therefore not to be re- 
duced to the low level and narrow span of our 


AND MODERNISTS 35 


finite comprehension. If we limit its truth to 
what we can pack down in our little hand-made 
band-boxes we are doing nothing less than help- 
ing to destroy the very faith we are in the effort 
to champion and either driving men and women 
by the tens of thousands into the Liberalist camp 
or smothering many a future songster by forcing 
him back into the hard shell of our patent inter- 
. pretation of the Bible. This is the great crime of 
every dying church at the end of its period. Again 
and again, with the very best of intentions, such 
churches have attempted to exorcize the spirit of 
doubt by whipping its children to death with the 
lash of the letter, when possibly there might have 
been some better way of treating their mental 
troubles and curing their spiritual ills. 

Among the true Fundamentalists we find many 
literalists who are men of the highest integrity, 
guileless as the day, and filled with true zeal for 
the honor of God and the salvation of souls. They 
are actively and unselfishly engaged in serving 
the Lord where others stand aloof and even pre- 
sume to smile at them with a supercilious smile. 
They are consecrated as well as sanctified and de- 
voted believers in the Lord Jesus. And this after 
all is the main thing. All else is of secondary im- 
portance. But we believe most sincerely that the 
faith of men to-day and the enlargement of the 


36 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


borders of the kingdom would be furthered still 
more in the long run if these spiritual leaders 
might rise to some of the higher levels which lead 
up to the view-point of the Teacher who left this 
re-echo in the hearts of two disciples: “Was not 
our heart burning within us, while he spoke to 
us in the way, while he opened to us the Scrip- 
tures” (Lk. 24. 32). 


SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS. 

If this surface exegesis were consistent with it- 
self the mischief wrought would not be so tragic. 
But the Bible itself is its own refutation of it. 
A few examples will suffice. For instance, “He 
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
heel” (Gen. 3. 15). One good brother may re- 
mark, ‘“‘God does not state specifically that this is 
to be understood in any other sense than that of 
the strictly literal statement. Consequently the 
passage means that the seed of the woman was 
to crush the physical head of a serpent and in the 
process suffer similar injury to his own physical 
heel. And everybody else must understand it in 
the same way as I do, or he is not a believer, for 
evidently he does not believe the Bible.” But 
another brother may feel privileged to put a 
somewhat different construction on the passage, 
rather more, he believes, in harmony with the 


AND MODERNISTS svi 


Spirit that inspired it and more in accord with 
the facts of its fulfilment. The same applies to 
many another passage. To deny this is to lay our- 
selves open to the charge made by Paul against 
the unbelieving Jews, “But unto this day when- 
soever Moses is read a veil lieth upon their heart” 
(2: Cor-3F 157: 

Again, “And thou shalt bind them (the com- 
mandments given) for a sign upon thy hand, and 
they shall be for frontlets between thy eyes” 
(Dt. 6. 8). The command is clear, and it is to the 
credit of the Pharisees that they were consistent 
and actually wore small boxes containing these 
words in writing on their wrists and on their 
foreheads. They were driven to it by their crass 
“hermeneutics.” But is this exactly what God 
meant when He spoke — and still speaks — these 
words to us? 

Again, when Jesus says, “I came to cast fire 
upon the earth,” one brother may understand by 
“fire” physical fire, such as destroys our northern 
forests. And in defence of such a position he 
may add, “The Bible says ‘fire’, that is, natural 
fire, especially as it does not state that this is a 
parable, or that it is to be taken figuratively.” 
Another brother may take the liberty to differ. 
Not with the Bible, but with the coarse realism of 
the exposition. 


38 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


Again Jesus says, “He that hath none, let him 
sell his cloak and buy a sword” (Lk. 22. 36), and 
there is no statement in the context to the effect 
that this is to be taken in a spiritual sense. We 
recall the “interpretation” of the disciples when 
they said, ‘Lord, behold, here are two swords.” 
One of these swords was in the hand of the im- 
petuous Peter and he shortly proceeded to use it 
in very much the same manner as other equally 
sincere and equally misguided disciples have done 
since then in loyal “defense of Christ.” 

When Jesus warned His disciples to ‘‘take heed 
and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Mt. 
16. 6), they immediately gave His words a literal 
meaning and “reasoned among themselves, say- 
ing, We took no loaves.” We remember the almost 
impatient rebuke, “‘How is it that ye do not per- 
ceive that I spake not to you concerning loaves?” 
But here some friend will reply that Jesus ex- 
plained that He was using figurative language. 
Yes; but evidently He had not intended to; nor 
did He explain till the surprising obtuseness of 
the disciples made it necessary. And suppose He 
had not explained, or that we had no record of 
an explanation, would we have no choice but to 
understand Him as referring to kitchen bread? 
Would not His words have continued to bear the 
same spiritual meaning, the meaning of His own 


AND MODERNISTS 39 


divine mind, even though the additional dialog 
had not followed? 

Again, “If thine eye causeth thee to stumble, 
pluck it out and cast it from thee: it is good for 
thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than 
having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire” 
(Mt. 18. 9). No hint at all that these words are to 
be taken figuratively. Yet we do not find any of 
our modern literalists obeying the injunction in 
anything but a spiritual sense. 

Compare also Peter’s exposition of Ps. 16. 8-11 
in his Pentecost sermon. (Acts 2. 25-31). Asa 
sample of many similar New Testament quota- 
tions of Old Testament texts it will repay care- 
ful study. 

The Pseudo-Fundamentalists not only persist 
in putting these limitations on the Word of God 
— not indeed on the instanced passages, but on 
many another passage — though they cannot help 
but see how inconsistent they are and how im- 
possible the rule is of uniform application. They 
also presume to judge and condemn brethren who 
wish to save the Bible from being buried in this 
napkin and whose purpose is to make room for 
the larger faith and the deeper conviction which 
brings joy and peace to the hearts of men. This 
misguided perseverance is sometimes due to the 
policy of “safety first’’; sometimes to a pet theory 


40 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


which requires this means of vindication; some- 
times to one or more blind-spots in their spiritual 
vision. But more often it is due to a most laud- 
able fear of losing the childlike persuasion which 
is their all of faith. Deep conviction has no other 
choice than tu contend earnestly for what appears 
to be the truth and the only truth, especially when 
jeopardized by “strange doctrine.” “See that ye 
despise not one of these little ones” (Mt. 18. 10), 
these spiritual children. To rob them of their 
only interpretation would be to snatch the Bible 
out of their hands and leave them poor indeed. 
Our only contention is that they in turn do not 
insist on limiting others to these limitations. For 
this again would be to snatch the Bible out of the 
hands of those who believe in the same Bible as 
the inspired Word of God, but whose very faith 
compels them to apply the words of Isaiah 54. 2. 
“Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them 
stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; 
spare not: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy 
stakes.” 

To embalm the body of Scripture with the sweet 
spices of tradition (“as is the manner of the Jews 
to bury’’?) may be both piety and faith. And 
those who adopt this manner of preserving what 
is left to them should not be denied this beautiful 
expression of devoted love. And yet, to make the 


AND MODERNISTS Al 


Scriptures only the final resting place of their 
hope and guard it with jealous fear of intrusion 
is hardly consistent with faith in the risen, living, 
and omnipotent Truth. There is a better founda- 
tion for faith than the stone of literalism before 
the door. There is no need to lament if it should 
prove to be rolled away. A Mary Magdalene may 
arrive at a hasty conclusion of her own and say, 
“They have taken away the Lord,” but it will not 
be long till such souls as she, the other women, 
and the male disciples, will hear a familiar voice 
speak peace to their troubled souls. 


THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS. 


Before leaving this phase of Pseudo-Funda- 
mentalism it may be of value to observe that 
many of these theories appear to have their 
source in the camp of the philosophical “Intellect- 
ualists”, here represented by a certain type of 
Calvinist, legalist in spirit and rationalist in psy- 
chology. They must “understand,” and make that 
understanding the criterion of truth, though 
Henri Bergson for one has shown how irrational 
this is and how impossible it is to lay hold of 
actual truth with the hand of mere logic or the 
crude tools of mechanical intellect. On the other 
hand, those who find the letter of Scripture trans- 
parent and luminous with a divine effulgence may 


42 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


be classed with the ‘“‘Voluntarists.”” The Intellect- 
ualist sees the Bible as the flat picture of, e. g., 
a great cathedral; the latter sees it as the cathe- 
dral itself and enters the sanctuary to pray. To 
the former the Bible is a concave dome, with suns, 
planets, and satellites all on the same surface; to 
the latter it is an infinite universe of solar sys- 
tems in a perspective of vast spacial interrela- 
tions. The former climbs briskly up to its stars, 
plucks them down, sorts them, labels them, prices 
them, and markets them; the latter gazes up at 
the constellations of that same heaven in silent 
adoration and prostrates himself in worship at 
the feet of their Creator. 

According to present indications it would seem 
as though the one group of voyagers were drift- 
ing into a position where the only choice is be- 
tween the extremes of Pseudo-Fundamentalism 
or sceptic Modernism. Either means shipwreck. 
True faith, however, is not caught on the horns 
of this dilemma and the hope of a distracted and 
exhausted world is not reduced to these dread 
alternatives. But more of this later. 


SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE. 
The crying need of the hour is spiritual per- 
spective. More than all things else we need the 
gift of that Spirit which opens our eyes to what 


AND MODERNISTS 43 


neither physical nor mental eye hath seen (1 Cor. 
2. 9). The physical, the material, the literal, is 
assuredly not the only reality. As conductors of 
spiritual truth the senses are poor indeed. To say 
of anything material, “This is fundamental,” is 
to deny the faith of Christ. To say that the spir- 
itual is not real, and the far more real thing, is 
nothing less than to train our guns, in the name 
of the Christian faith, on the very stronghold of 
the Christian faith. The Spirit of Christ does 
not stop short at the surface of anything. It does 
not deny the truth of His own mind. On the 
contrary it makes the letter of Scripture diapha- 
nous to a higher and a greater light and transpar- 
ent to the deeply penetrating eye of faith. The 
throne of God stands on ‘“‘a sea of glass like unto 
crystal” (Rev. 4. 6). 

The damage done by what one writer calls 
“dementalized textarianism’” may not appear at 
once, but the day is not far distant when literal 
strictures on single texts and larger portions 
of Scripture must cause the faith of many to 
wax cold. Meanwhile we should feel devoutly 
grateful for what God has preserved to us 
of our Protestant inheritance from the days 
of the Reformation. Eternal vigilance is still the 
price of liberty, but as yet we do not have our 


44 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


views formulated for us by any curia, to find our- 
selves shut in, like goldfish circling in a glass 
globe, looking out into fields of divine truth 
through walls we cannot pass. Christian scholar- 
ship is not with us a stigma of disgrace. In the 
cases, numerous enough, where it has deviated, 
this is not infrequently the reaction of the instinct 
of self-preservation against the illiberal intoler- 
ance of the undiscerning. Where such scholarship 
might have been inspired by a spirit of piety and 
directed by deep devotion it is often estranged 
by the attitude of those who seem to think that 
their own opinion is a ne plus ultra, the final 
word. To create Modernism by maintaining a 
reactionary position, and then to condemn it and 
curse it, is surely not a service well pleasing to 
God. Such a course may indeed be in the interest 
of a dead, formal religion, but hardly in the in- 
terest of a vital Christianity and of the faith that 
overcometh the world. 


PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. 


Is there such a thing as “progressive revela- 
tion” in the Scriptures? The question has been 
raised and proves to be actual. It confronts us 
as a problem which concerns a living faith in the 
Bible and refuses to be dismissed with a gesture. 


AND MODERNISTS 45 


There is good reason for the contention of a 
certain type of Fundamentalists against it. A 
true instinct tells them that it may be a hole in 
the dike, threatening us with a devastating in- 
undation. If the Bible is the Word of God, why 
is not every book, chapter, and verse of equal © 
authority for all times? And who is to pass on | 
the relative value of the different parts? 

These Fundamentalists maintain that its con- 
tents are all on the same level; that every part 
is equally authoritative in its truth for our faith 
and in its ethics for our conduct; that the New 
Testament does not mark a higher stage of devel- 
opment, but that Leviticus and the Gospel of John, 
Kcclesiastes and the Apocalypse, are on exactly 
the same plane. Is this position tenable? Is < 
consistent application of this doctrine possible? 
Let us take a few cases in point. 

In Dt. 25. 5-10 we read, “If brethren dwell to- 
gether, and one of them die, and have no son, the 
wife of the dead shall not be married without unto 
a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in unto 
her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the 
duty of a husband’s brother unto her. And it 
shall be, that the first born that she beareth shall 
succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, 
that his name be not blotted out of Israel. And if 
the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then 


46 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto 
the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refus- 
eth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; 
he will not perform the duty of a husband’s broth- 
er unto me. Then the elders of the city shall call 
him, and speak to him; and if he stand, and say, 
I like not to take her; then shall his brother’s wife 
come unto him in the presence of the elders, and 
loose his shoe off his foot, and spit in his face; 
and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done 
unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s 
house. And his name shall be called in Israel, 
The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” Read 
also verses 11 and 12. 

The same Law commands: “If a man have a 
stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey 
the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, 
and who, when they have chastened him, will not 
hearken unto them, then shall his father and his 
mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto 
the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his 
place; and they shall say unto the elders of his 
city. This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he 
will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a 
drunkard. And all the men of the city shall stone 
him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put 
evil away from among you; and all Israel shall 
hear, and fear” (Dt. 21. 18-21). 


AND MODERNISTS AT 


Again, when the Law stipulates that the meat 
of an animal “that dieth of itself” may not be 
eaten by an Israelite, but may be sold to a for- 
eigner (Dt. 14. 21), is it not evident that its ethics 
belong to an earlier age? 

Now, these things are in the Bible. The Bible 
says so. But who among us is ready to step forth 
and declare that this code applies to-day just as 
it reads. Especially in view of the doubts raised 
by such passages in the mind of the average read- 
er and the really serious difficulties which he en- 
counters again and again. And when our theology 
teaches that this legislation is fulfilled in Christ 
and therefore no longer binding in the New Cove- 
nant, does it not thereby admit that this part of 
the Old Testament is superceded by a higher 
spiritual law and in so far concede that the claims 
of the “progressives” may be deserving of some 
consideration? 

But how about the rest of the Old Testament? 
Take the following commands occurring in its 
sacred history: “Thus saith the Lord God of 
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and 
go in and out from the gate throughout the camp, 
and slay every man his brother, and every man 
his companion, and every man his neighbor” (Ex. 
32.27). Again, “Spare them not, but slay both man 
and woman, infant and suckling” (1 Sam. 15.38). 


48 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


Even the most reactionary traditionalists are 
not ready to defend the position that such pas- 
sages as these be applied literally to-day, or that 
they are to be placed on a par with, for instance, 
the words of Jesus in the Gospels. 3 

Those who are acquainted with their Bibles 
know that such illustrations might be multiplied 
indefinitely, and in some instances with even 
graver moral import. 

The subject requires a far more careful and 
extensive treatment than we can give it here. To 
sum the matter up in a few statements, it should 
be evident to every spiritual mind, that if the 
Bible is the Word of God its inspiration must be 
plenary. It must be replete with the divine life 
and light which in itself knows of no progressive 


development. There is no less of the Spirit of . 


God in Genesis than in Matthew, no less of divine 
truth in Exodus and Leviticus than in Mark and 
Luke. The Holy Spirit does not “‘grow.” 

But with regard to the surface meaning of the 
letter in which that revelation is couched, the case 
is different. The language of such passages as 
those instanced above, that is, the historical sense, 
is not the plane to which Christ would lift the 
Church of the New Covenant. In other words, 
spiritually there is no progressive revelation ; his- 
torically there is a progressive revelation. If we 


: 


AND MODERNISTS 49 


penetrate perpendicularly, so to speak, beneath 
the subsurface into the spirit of the Word, the 
fulness of God’s revelation is present from the be- 
ginning and knows of no degree. But if we look 
at it horizontally, we can hardly fail to recognize 
a progressive development of its human medium 
and temporal language. There is therefore truth 
in the contention of both the schools of theology 
under consideration. The difference is in the 
angle of vision. Do we then make Scripture of 
none effect through this synthesis? God forbid; 
nay, we establish Scripture. Meanwhile the stars 
of God’s Word shine on, even though some of His 
children should still believe that they are bright 
holes in the floor of its heaven. They continue 
to shed their divine radiance with equal impar- 
- tiality on the path of all wayfaring men, whether 
these pilgrims homeward-bound are journeying 
on the quiet plains or voyaging on stormy seas. 
No matter what our theories may be about them, 
they are God’s creation. ‘“He made the stars also” 
(Gen. 1. 16). 


SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE. 


Another inconsistency appears in the attitude 
of the typical Pseudo-Fundamentalist toward cer- 
tain theories of natural science. He is eminently 
right in protesting against the gross abuse which 


50 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


is sometimes made of new discoveries, against a 
materialistic trend of scientific knowledge as ap- 
plied science, against an irreligious bias on the 
part of many an educator, against the sapping 
process of rationalism going on in the Church it- 
self. And this trend is so ominous that the in- 
clination to wholesale condemnation is well nigh 
justifiable. ‘“‘Rather no progress at all,” the faith- 
ful feel at times, “‘than the threatened loss of what 
is far more precious than mere science.” 

And yet history proves that indiscriminate dis- 
carding of theories that are after all honest at- 
tempts to account for indisputable facts is at best 
only negatively in the interest of faith. And by 
emphasizing unduly the negative side we are in 
danger of inflicting fatal injury to positive truth 
of every kind. Nor will mere invective further 
the cause of Christ in the hearts and minds of the 
coming generation. Such uninformed zeal is even 
now causing serious harm to the struggling faith 
of our youth. Many of them are battling des- 
perately to keep their faith amid the widening 
horizons of a new day. They are sincerely desir- 
ous to preserve a precious inheritance while ac- 
quiring actual knowledge. They are getting ac- 
quainted with the facts of astronomy, biology, geo- 
logy and history, and then suddenly presented 
with the dread alternative, “Science, or the Bible! 


AND MODERNISTS 51 


You cannot have both!” The consequence is that 
mind and heart are rent asunder, and faith is 
often wrecked beyond repair. 

A far better course would be to inform our- 
selves as far as may be; to accept tentatively such 
facts as appear to be clearly demonstrated; to see 
how far they can be harmonized with the Scrip- 
tures; and then be willing to share our convictions 
with those who need our assistance and look to 
us for guidance over possible stumbling-blocks in 
the path. | 

We who are a little older than our children 
should also bear in mind that after the age of 
forty on an average we hardly ever change our 
world-view or system of thought. Nor does the 
wiser and better element among our young people 
expect it. They do however expect, and they have 
a right to expect, that we do not attempt to inflict 
our obsolete science and medieval philosophy on 
them, and that we refrain from abusing them for 
entertaining diverging views in purely secular 
matters. For they have stepped into a world as 
different from ours as the sixteenth century was 
different from the twelfth. But meanwhile many 
of them are hoping and trusting that we will 
share with them our Bible, our Saviour, our 
Christian faith, our spiritual experience, our hope 
of salvation. 


5? FUNDAMENTALISTS 


In so far as the natural sciences taught in our 
schools to-day tally with the facts of God’s own 
handiwork, they cannot of course be wicked in 
themselves. Nor can the theological science taught 
in seminaries be wicked in itself, in so far as it 
tallies with the facts of the Bible. We have rea- 
son to believe that the true scientists in both fields 
are sincere in their desire to discover and to share 
with us nothing but the truth. In both fields how- 
ever there are also men who are only would-be 
scientists, with whom “‘a little learning is a dan- 
gerous thing,” both to themselves and to others. 
There are men whose hearts are wrong and who 
therefore can have no true vision in the head. 
Those who are strangers to God are unable to see 
the truth, not only spiritual truth but truth of any 
kind. They may know facts and yet be unable to 
distinguish between a fact and a truth. There are 
also teachers of the same stripe who are incapable 
of presenting scientific facts in their relation to 
truth in other fields of knowledge and who there- 
fore misrepresent the former and leave pupils 
with entirely erroneous inferences, to say nothing 
of the relation of these facts to the truths of re- 
vealed religion. Outside of the schools we have 
the press and its Sunday articles which readers 
of this material are so easily deluded into believ- 
ing to be the final word in “science.” Much of 


AND MODERNISTS 53 


what appears in the popular magazines and in 
“the best sellers” is of the same misleading order. 

Our real source of danger is therefore the abuse 
' of the facts by irresponsible men, and the half- 
baked dough which is dished up in the name of 
science, not infrequently poisoned besides by the 
insinuations of sceptical minds. But also our own 
neglect to keep pace with the changes going on be- 
fore our eyes and our failure to give our children 
the spiritual ballast which would keep their men- 
tal ship on an even keel. We have been working 
at the wrong end in the attempt to correct abuses 
by intemperate criticism, instead of bending our 
energies to create a spirit and a character that 
would grapple with each problem as it arises and 
incorporate the solution in a truly Christian phi- 
losophy of the world. 

The situation being what it is, we should be 
grateful for the voices which are raised in warn- 
ing against a tendency that is big with danger. In- 
stead of permitting ourselves to be annoyed by 
those voices, it behooves us to give respectful at- 
tention to a spiritual instinct which is right in the 
main, even though words employed and methods 
adopted may not be all that we might desire. But 
as the cure for abnormal conditions is normal 
men, so the cure for misinformation is informed 
men, and the cure for anti-Christianity is Chris- 


54 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


tian men. Only those who are informed, as well 
as Christian, and Christian, as well as informed, 
are “normal,” and thus in position to offer real as- 
sistance in solving acute and distressing problems. 
It shows the present need of intelligent, educated, 
and spiritual-minded leadership in the Church, 
the School, and the State. Money-bags do not 
make good statesmen; pagans do not make good 
teachers; and Philistines do not make good 
churchmen. 


THE NEED OF GUIDANCE. 


But why discuss these matters at all? Would it 
not be wiser to refrain entirely from ventilating 
questions of this kind? The simple answer is, 
There is such a thing as conscience, there is such 
a thing as concern for souls. And when others 
far better equipped remain silent, and souls are 
being swept down the current before our very 
eyes, we have no other choice but to offer our 
services to those who will accept them. 

There are young men and women by the thou- 
sands, open, honest minds. who are emerging out 
of the older forms of their childhood faith and 
who therefore are in imminent danger of losing 
that faith with the sloughing of these earlier 
forms. These young minds are not being proper- 
ly cared for. It is difficult to assist them in a 


AND MODERNISTS 55 


really helpful way. Hence they are very much in 
need of friends who understand their mental 
problems and are willing to lend a hand. Early 
personal experiences of similar mental difficul- 
ties, observation at close hand of others who are 
stumbling along on the same paths, and the dis- 
coveries a teacher makes of the workings of the 
adolescent mind, are our sufficient warrant for 
rendering what we humbly trust may be of some 
assistance in climbing through the mists to the 
higher altitudes and wider prospects of revealed 
truth. 

A mother may weep over the doubts of her 
growing son, a father may rave over his “‘non- 
sense,” a companion may laugh at his scruples, 
but the heart of the young man himself may be 
crying out for help. Intellectual integrity is price- 
less to him. He loathes duplicity. He refuses to 
be an opportunist or a craven. But if some older 
friends steps into his life and shows him how to 
solve the intellectual problems that seem to stand 
in the way of his faith, there is strong probability 
that by the grace of God he will see his way clear 
to the solution of what is after all a spiritual 
problem. The faith of even one soul is moreover 
so precious that if a word here and there may be 
even only suggestive, it is worth whatever it may 
cost in the way of experiences that sadden our 


56 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


mortal life. Such assistance is of course intended 
for those who may need it. and not for those who 
are above or beyond it. 


AND MODERNISTS 57 


B. THE MODERNISTS. 


Of these there are again several kinds. In fact, 
there are all of the “57 varieties.”’ But once more 
we discover a Right and a Left, and for our pres- 
ent purposes we shall discuss them under these 
two headings. 


THE RIGHT WING. 


There are men who are classed by the Pseudo- 
Fundamentalists as Modernists and Liberalists 
who at heart are true Fundamentalists. They 
accept all the foundation doctrines because these 
are a vital part of their Christian experience. In 
their daily conduct also they manifest the spirit 
of their Lord and Saviour. They are men of faith 
and men of prayer. They confess Christ in word 
and deed and walk worthily of the Gospel. Their 
hearts are the abode of the Holy Spirit, and they 
show a genuine concern for the salvation of their 
fellow-men. 

But while they believe sincerely in the Bible as 
the inspired Word of God, they do not accept the 
forbidding literalism of the Pseudo-Fundamental- 
ist, for the simple reason that they find it incon- 


5S FUNDAMENTALISTS 


sistent with a spiritual faith, as well as contrary 
to the spirit of Scripture itself. Nor will they 
always agree to be bound by particular theories 
of inspiration which have no definition in the New 
Testament and never were made tests of fellow- 
ship in the Apostolic Church. They believe in the 
second coming of Christ, and in the imminence of 
that coming, but not all of them will accept as 
obligatory for faith the manner of that coming in 
every minute detail as laid down by those who 
arbitrarily constitute themselves a court of last 
appeal. They take this position, partly because 
they have taken pains to inform themselves and 
their integrity gives them no other choice, and 
partly because they find the truth so discovered 
quite consistent with the Bible’s own interpreta- 
tion of itself. 

Dr. Jowett said, shortly before his death: “I 
yield to none in zealous guardianship and procla- 
mation of the central and fundamental doctrines 
of the evangelical faith, and I think there was 
never a time when there was greater need for 
those doctrines to be proclaimed. It is imperative 
that we be solidly united in sacred loyalty to all 
truth that is essential to the regeneration and 
sanctification of the soul and the creation of men 
and women in Christ Jesus. But it is possible to 
so contend, even for central things, as to lose the 


AND MODERNISTS 59 


sense of relation and proportion; and by the man- 
ner of our controversy we may lose the clear sight 
of the supreme values. The first necessity of all 
vital and tenacious hold upon the evangelical ver- 
ities, and of fruitful ministry in them, is the 
Spirit of the Lord Jesus. It is this Spirit and this 
alone that clarifies the atmosphere, removing the 
confusing, obscuring medium of suspicion, mis- 
understanding and unholy anger and resentment.” 


THE LEFT WING. 


But there are also Modernists of a different 
color. These too are materialistic literalists, who 
miss entirely the spirit of the Scriptures, but at 
the opposite extreme of the Pseudo-Fundamental- 
ists. For their rationalism is as much material- 
ism in the last analysis as is the intellectualism of 
the orthodoxist. These liberalists secularize the 
sacred contents of Scripture. To them it is only 
so much literature of varying value. Its divine 
authority is practically nil. For an infallible 
Bible and an “‘infallible’’ Pope they have substi- 
tuted the “‘infallibility” of scientists. They speak 
brave words about the spirit of the Scriptures, but 
they are like the undevout astronomer who 
claimed to have swept the heavens with his tele- 
scope and found no God. They dissect and dis- 
member the body of Scripture and of course the 


60 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


keen edge of their criticism fails to discover the 
soul. They make a pretense of keeping such parts 
of the Bible as seem to stand the test of natural 
reason and theological science, but gradually even 
these parts slip out of their grasp, like dry sand in 
a fist. Occasionally they attempt to save a rem- 
nant by a kind of spiritual interpretation of their 
own, which however only vaporizes and dissipates 
it. Almost every vital doctrine too is either open- 
ly denied, gutted by mental reservations, or gar- 
bled out of all semblance to the truth. “Liberalism 
in theology is a sickish dilution of orthodoxy. 
Fundamentalism is at least strong, even if it is 
blind. Liberal modernism can see farther than it 
dares to go. It is a coward at heart’ (Professor 
Cushman). They are flippant of mind, adroit in 
the art of camouflage, and their mental habit is 
negation. The attitude they take toward the hum- 
ble believer is one of cynical contempt or snobbish 
tolerance. For the spirit of prayer and any true 
missionary zeal we shall look in vain. “The com- 
mand, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved, thou and thy house,’ they have 
changed to read, ‘Believe in the progress of man 
onward and upward forever’ by a free mechanical 
process” (Marshall Dawson). They are Pilates 
who ask, “‘What is truth?” and then deliberately 
turn their backs upon the Truth. Therefore they 


AND MODERNISTS 61 


also fail to recognize the background reflection of 
themselves in the mirror Paul holds up in 1 Cor. 
1. 26-29, “For behold your calling, brethren, that 
not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, 
not many noble, are called; but God chose the 
foolish things of the world, that he might put to 
shame the things that are wise; and God chose he 
weak things of the world, that he might put to 
shame the things that are strong; and the base 
things of the world, and the things that are de- 
spised, did God choose, yea, and the things that 
are not, that he might bring to nought the things 
that are: that no flesh should glory before God.” 


WHY THIS SPIRIT? 


The reason for such a spirit is patent. Their 
faith is only intellectualism. They are lacking in 
religious experience. They are strangers to the 
Holy Spirit. And they have nothing to substitute 
for what they are taking away. ‘They are, in 
short, blind leaders of the blind. 


There may however be additional reasons. It 
may be that they have been driven into the dilem- 
ma of choosing between the reactionary attitude 
of the Pseudo-Fundamentalists and — nothing. 
For this is the alternative presented to many a 
sincere and distracted mind to-day. Certainly this 


62 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


was not the only choice, but there is a possibility 
that a third choice did not appear to them. 

Another cause may be a church-machinery 
Christianity, on the one hand, and an emotion- 
revival Christianity, on the other, both of which 
history shows go swiftly to seed in a hollow trav- 
esty of religion. The natural fruit of the one is 
orthodoxism and formalism, and that of the other 
is rationalism and anomianism. The one trend 
reappears in Pseudo-Fundamentalism; the other 
in modern Liberalism. Both are head-religion; the 
one looking back to the past with a closed mind; 
the other looking forward with sightless eyes; the 
one resting on human authority, the other build- 
ing on the shifting sands of secular knowledge, — 
neither one penetrating with the eyes of a living 
faith to the heart and spirit of revealed truth, the 
heart and spirit of Christ. 

Regardless however of the causes, with or with- 
out a name, the fact remains that if this Liberalist 
movement comes into the ascendency and takes 
the lead in the Church, the end is unbelief and 
lawlessness, while it is equally true that if Pseudo- 
Fundamentalism takes the lead, the end is paral- 
ysis and dry-rot. In the one case, no Church at 
all; in the other case, a mortuary chapel. Mean- 
while we must be on our guard lest the Church 
invite an attitude of indifference, or at best be 


AND MODERNISTS 63 


regarded with tolerance and patronage, as though 
she were ‘‘a sort of institutional grandmother, 
worthy of affection and care, but not capable of 
functioning in a vigorous and vital way. Religion 
is absolute and imperial in its very genius. It 
cannot be dependent. Its royalty and universal- 
ity are inherent. When they go, it ceases to live.” 

According to present indications Sadduceeism 
and Pharisaism will continue to exist for awhile 
side by side, growing ever more hostile and bitter 
toward each other. In the end, however, history 
will repeat itself, first in a combined attack on 
the Spirit of the Christ “without the camp” of 
both factions, and then in the fury of a mutual 
war that shall undermine the resistance of the 
organized Church and usher in another and still 
more fearful “destruction of Jerusalem.” 


THE SOLUTION. 


This “destruction” may be the final “solution,” 
heralding the coming of the King and His King- 
dom. Prophecy looks in this direction and out- 
lines such a consummation. Any other solution 
may therefore be nothing short of unbelief flying 
in the face of God. But in the event that some 
of us may not be reading the signs of the times 
aright, other solutions may deserve at least a 
passing consideration. 


64. FUNDAMENTALISTS 


One proposed solution is to combine Pseudo- 
Fundamentalism and Pseudo-Modernism in a com- 
plete and balanced whole. A little acquaintance 
with the spirit of each will show that the pros- 
pects of such a possibility are nothing short of 
hopeless. The inherent incompatibility of the two > 
is that of cil and water. A reconciliation between 
these extremists would involve the surrender of 
principles which both regard as essential. The 
differences are nothing less than opposing views 
of life. A liberal organ, ‘‘The Christian Century,” 
says that the issue “‘goes to the very roots of reli- 
gious conviction and involves the basic purpose 
and almost the genius of Christianity itself. The 
differences are not mere surface differences, but 
are foundation differences, structural differences, 
amounting in their radical dissimilarity almost to 
the differences between two distinct religions.” 

The public debates which are being held by 
representatives of the opposing camps are suffi- 
cient evidence of this. The heart grows sick with 
misgivings when we pick up a morning paper and 
read the scare headline, ‘‘Bible Not Inspired,” 
even though we know that the debate was not on 
the question of its inspiration at all, but on differ- 
ing theories of Inspiration. Such discussions only 
make the issue sharper and bring the schism 
nearer — which indeed, from a higher point of 


AND MODERNISTS 65 


view, may be highly desirable. For in spite of all 
amenities these “mills” are no academic conver- 
sations, but a fight to the finish. And no matter 
who “wins,” his victory is a defeat for both, 
especially as neither side has a fair opportunity 
to emphasize essentials that both may be supposed 
to have in common, but must use the limited time 
in antagonizing each other and in exposing the 
glaring mistakes of the opposition. 

The general public too is growing weary of the 
contention. While they may not appreciate the 
issues involved, they do feel that “it is not the 
fault of one that two quarrel.” They feel that the 
strife is entirely aside of the point as far as their 
true interests are concerned. It does not feed 
their souls, and it does not guide their feet into 
the way of peace, nor does it marshal the hosts 
of Christ to fight the common enemy. There may 
be those who enjoy the spectacle of a religious 
prize-fight, but there are also souls who turn away 
from such a scene with horror. The former are 
the yelling rooters of both factions; the latter 
are the disciples of Him who says, ‘“‘Let the tares 
grow with the wheat until the harvest.” Both 
should be old enough to know that neither seven- 
teenth century orthodoxism nor eighteenth cen- 
tury “Enlightenment” will save us. A larger num- 
ber among “the remnant” than many of us sup- 


66 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


pose are even beginning to ask in all seriousness, 
“Is the time at hand for the simple followers of 
Christ to go forth and become a ‘church in the 
_ wilderness’ ?” 

A second proposition is to steer clear of both 
Right and Left in each camp, avoid the pitfalls — 
on either side, and walk serenely neutral in the 
middle of the road. But this too is impossible. 
For both of the larger groups, no matter how 
much they differ in manner of approach, do har- 
bor certain essentials that are indispensable to a 
complete and properly functioning Christianity. 
That is, the Fundamentalists have the content of 
faith, even though it sometimes be in the form of 
a cyst, and without this content Modernism is 
only so much vapor. The Modernists, again, rep- 
resent the shift in the center of gravity which has 
taken place in the modern Renaissance of natural, 
philosophical, and theological science, and which 
offers forms in which the old faith must be re- 
stated in order to become a reviving power in a 
disintegrating world. 

In a similar vein a representative of Modern- 
ism, Dr. R. C. Smith, says, ‘““The reason why we 
find ourselves on different sides is because fifty 
years ago the Bible began to be examined crit- 
ically, to see how it was made and to find out 
what it really said. This Bible, as we have seen, 


AND MODERNISTS 67 


means everything; it is the record of the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ, upon. whom the hope of the 
world depends. The Fundamentalist said: ‘You 
can not touch it. Leave it alone. You critics are 
going to destroy our Bible and the faith of good 
people. Do away with its authority, and you kill 
hope.’ 

“Now the Fundamentalists are right in saying 
that no hands shall hurt the Book where millions 
of men find life; they are right in saying that the 
men who examine it shall not destroy it. But 
the Modernist answers the Fundamentalist and 
says: ‘We have such faith in the light and life 
and spirit that we have found within the Bible 
that nothing can destroy it. Let us find out all 
about it; how it was written in the blood of men 
and in the blood of Jesus Christ; let us strike 
down deep to the authority of the spirit of the 
Book.’ And the Modernist also claims that his 
willingness to examine the Bible critically has 
been vindicated; for the men who have examined 
it have shown it to be a greater book than men 
dreamed of, with more authority than it ever had 
before. The discussion is not between a body of 
men who uphold the faith of the Church and an- 
other body of men who would undermine it or 
who would ‘whittle down the creed to fit a dwin- 
dling faith’; it is between loyal men on beth sides 


68 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


who want the Church to do its largest work in 
the best way.” We recognize the phraseology of 
the Modernist; and still his words may be deserv- 
ing of some consideration as indicating an occa- 
sional tone and temper in the movement. 

Those who can approach each other in the man- - 
ner indicated will find that the Christians in the 
two camps no more represent two religions than 
the two ends of a stick constitute two sticks. 
They will also find that the truth in both will 
blend into one, because frequently it is the same 
truth looked at from different angles. It is true 
that the two factions travel different roads which 
do not converge. But to say that they have noth- 
ing in common and that there are not elements 
in each which could and should be combined, is 
to take a superficial view. The mental attitude 
of the extremists is sharply antagonistic, but deep 
down in the soul of both there is often, if we care 
to look for it, a real unanimity of purpose. To 
be sure, the differences are by no means super- 
ficial; but careful and unbiased examination will 
show that many of the differences belong rather 
to the sphere of theology than to essential Chris- 
tianity. 

Certainly it is difficult to make clear distinc- 
tions here. The very attempt may seem like 
obliterating distinctions, or like a side-step to 


AND MODERNISTS 69 


avoid or befuddle the issues. But the fact remains 
that the degrees of difference are so numerous, 
and so extensive, that there is not the easy cleav- 
age which we should like to find, or use our axes 
to make. The real dividing line is the regenerate 
heart rather than any intellectual test or doctrinal 
touch-stone. The separating Judge is the Spirit 
of Christ. But for this very reason it is not so 
impossible as it would seem for kindred souls 
with a common Christian experience to compare 
notes, make mutual contributions, supply deficien- 
cies, join forces in defense of what shall appear 
to be the truth, and unite efforts in serving the 
real cause of the one and the same Saviour. 

A third solution is therefore, not neither, nor 
either-or, nor all of both, but some of each in a 
new creation of God which He alone can organize 
and inspire by His Holy Spirit. A soul is seeking 
a body, and a body is seeking a soul. Funda- 
mentalism of the genuine kind affords the soul, 
and Liberalism of the corresponding kind offers 
the material of a body. This means that to some 
extent the former may lack an adequate organic 
medium for touching, influencing, and directing 
a new generation in a new world. It means also 
that the latter may have lost its soul and is in 
need of the spiritual regeneration which alone can 
convert a pagan into a Christian. 


70 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


It may indeed be that this is not possible on the 
hither side of the consummation of the age. The 
time, we repeat, may not be at hand for a solution 
even of the third kind. A cataclysm may be in- 
evitable. It may be necessary that we first suffer | 
shipwreck in our proud self-confidence, in order 
that faith may experience a complete translation 
from the temporal things which are seen to the 
eternal things which are not seen. It may be that 
once more God has ‘‘judged” the past, to make 
room for a new age. 

Nevertheless it must remain true that some 
higher synthesis is both possible and desirable. 
In fact, such a synthesis is absolutely necessary. 
To men of vision it is growing ever clearer that 
without a new form and a new spirit in that form 
the prospect is a catastrophe which can end only 
in the “blackness of darkness.” It may be that 
Fundamentalism is impotent, and that Modern- 
ism is barren. It may be that a senile Church is 
now “well stricken in years.” But there is a God 
in heaven who is able to redeem His promises. 
The days of His miracles are not past. While 
possessing our souls in patience it is the plain 
duty of both leaders and followers in each of 
these movements to inform themselves, particu- 
larly in the fields where each is least acquainted. 
A prejudice that fights shy of possible facts for 


AND MODERNISTS Tt 


fear that these may upset traditional views and 
disturb our mental equilibrium should give place 
to honest research, in the full assurance that truth 
is not the enemy of truth. Shutting our eyes and 
screaming at what we do not understand is not 
good generalship. Nor is it a convincing confes- 
sion of faith. Luther dared to face the facts of 
criticism because of the strength of his faith in 
the Bible itself. And neither he nor we have 
suffered in consequence. Those of us to whom 
truth must be taught by others, because not much 
truth will ever be revealed to us, must keep our 
minds open to accept truth from whatever source 
it may come, so long as it appeals to our intelli- 
gence, our Christian experience, a live conscience, 
and a faith illumined by the Word of God. Deny- 
ing the facts or the inference of the facts does 
not establish us in the faith. It only establishes 
us in our own traditional opinions and views. 


PRESENT NEEDS. 


It would be most salutary to real progress if the 
respective contenders would arrive at a mutual 
understanding of definitions and terms. So much 
of our misunderstanding is due simply to a 
lamentably loose use of words and phrases. And 
here the Modernists are most at fault. Certainly 
words often take the place of ideas with the Fun- 


72 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


damentalists. But even more frequently the Mod- 
ernists employ expressions which they know do 
not truly convey their own views. 

Mutual intercession for each other, not forget- 
ting to pray for ourselves, that Christ would shed 
abroad upon us a larger measure of His Spirit, 
would more than all things else pave the way for 
an approximation of enlightened Fundamental- 
ists and believing Progressives, with material 
benefit to both. The Pseudo-Fundamentalists in- 
deed call their own spirit the Holy Spirit, but this 
is not the answer to the prayer we have in mind. 
And the false Modernists either do not pray at 
all, or are not able to receive “the promise of the 
Father,” because they are strangers to a saving 
faith. 

The Spirit of Christ breathes upon us a spirit 
of humility and a spirit of love. It is the Spirit 
that inspired such words as these, “Every one 
who is angry with his brother shall be in danger 
of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his 
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; 
and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in 
danger of the hell of fire’ (Mt. 5. 22). “By this 
shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye 
have love one to another” (Jn. 18. 35). The Bap- 
tist Convention at Atlantic City adopted as its 
motto, “Agreed to Differ but Resolved to Love.” 


AND MODERNISTS | 73 


We all need the reminder that prophecy, knowl- 
edge, impoverishing ourselves for the poor, and 
martyrdom itself, are all as nothing without love 
(1 Cor. 18. 1-8). . 

That same Spirit also makes us free and 
prompts us to respect the freedom of the brother. 
“For freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast 
therefore, and be not entangled again in the yoke 
of bondage” (Gal. 5. 1), whether it be, as here, 
the yoke of the law, or the yoke of Pharisaism, 
or the yoke of Sadduceeism. No spiritual fruit 
was ever produced by coercion. To bind the brain 
and gag the mouth is to render static the intel- 
lectual life and faith of all, pastors and teachers 
included. It leads to pretense and crawfishing 
and to a general cowardice in thinking and ex- 
pression because of which men are afraid to give 
the hot truth straight from their hearts. It makes 
them inhibit their honest convictions, to look 
around instead for some canned article with a 
special label to commend it. 

This was not the attitude of the prophets, the 
apostles, the reformers, and it should not be the 
spirit of the Church which has been the Church 
of education and knowledge, of freedom of speech 
and conscience, of faith and love. It is to be hoped 
that this Church will continue to prove strong 
enough to include, as does the Bible itself, various 


74 3 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


types of personality and various modes of think- 
ing, and not be a one-track affair which excludes 
all minds that do not run in a single groove. To. 
stand still is to go to seed. If the Spirit of Christ 
is our motive power we may safely leave the 
direction to Him. It will not serve the purpose 
to-day to make of the church “a limousine which 
we decorate with a bouquet of cut-flowers, when 
the batteries are dead.” 

With respect to human authority we do not he- 
lieve in gravitation because of Newton, nor do we 
accept the atomic theory because of Dalton, nor 
the X-ray because of Roentgen, nor the facts of 
radium because of the Curies. We accept them be- 
cause they “work” and because they serve, or can 
be made to serve, the interests of mankind. The 
spirit which would drive pastors out of pulpits 
and professors out of their chairs because of 
purely scientific views and their inescapable in- 
ferences is a piece of conceit and affrontery so 
astounding in our age that fair-minded men turn 
away with a feeling of humiliation and shame. 
To taunt progressive men to pick up and leave if 
the fulminations of reactionaries do not please 
them is to confuse the identity of the Church or 
of their own particular denomination with the 
identity of their own group. This spirit is of one 
piece with that of the hundred-per cent patriot- 


AND MODERNISTS 75 


eers who tell political progressives that if they do 
not like a Teapot Dome government they are at 
liberty to leave the country. It is the spirit of the 
reactionary king Louis XIV who said (rendered 
in the vernacular): ‘“‘The State, that’s me.” This 
was the spirit and attitude moreover that brought 
on the Revolution. | 

Over against this presumption “The Lutheran” 
strikes a sane note: “‘Many sects have held fast 
to little points on the circumference of the Chris- 
tian faith and have lost their hold on the great 
center of Gospel truth. There is need of much 
earnest searching of Scripture to learn afresh 
what is clearly revealed. There is need of cast- 
ing overboard half-truths based on a few pet 
passages of Scripture to the exclusion of what 
other passages have to say. The evangelicals 
must not be indifferent to history and scholarship, 
but must become masters in this field. They must 
establish their claim as defenders of the Gospel 
on more solid ground than sentiment and fervor, 
and show that they are not averse to growth and 
progress in sacred knowledge. Here is a case 
where there can be no real peace until the issue 
is clearly faced and met.” 


76 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


CONCLUSION. 


What we have attempted to say in the preced- — 
ing pages — pleading for our diffusion the nebu- 
lous nature of the subject — serves to show, if 
no more, that the question is still an open one and 
by no means presents the alternative of either 
Pharisaism or Sadduceeism. If this dread alter- 
native were all that is left to us, the author for 
one would have to be counted with those who 
after all have preserved the essentials ‘of the true 
faith, even though some of these essentials appear 
to be hidden away under the soil of a well-kept 
cemetery. In our presentation, however, we have 
deliberately leaned in the other direction, but only 
in an instinctive move to recover the balance of 
the boat in which we are voyaging. For it cannot 
be denied that the craft has taken a rather serious 
list to port. 


In the language of another figure, the really 
important thing is the home; but there can surely 
be no harm in adding some ‘‘modern improve- 
ments” to the house. Nor need the family life be 
disrupted if the younger members should choose 
to use a different language from that of their 
parents. That is to say, if a new generation in 
the Church should employ a modern tongue in ex- 
pressing the same old saving truths of the past. 


AND MODERNISTS i § 


As the language question has at times caused 
serious dissension in local congregations, so a cor- 
responding change in the language of theology 
may prove to be provocative of contention. There 
is, however, no good reason why it should produce 
a split in the household of faith. Against such a 
possibility we of course must contend, not with 
a “zeal that is not according to knowledge,” but 
yet with all the ardor of the Spirit of Christ. If 
we hold to the essentials, though language may 
vary, and make our theology Biblio-centric and 
Christo-centric, there is little danger of the ec- 
centricity which would “fly off at a tangent’ in 
either of the opposite directions. And the con- 
servation of such conservatism will find its key- 
note in the confession of Paul: “The life which 
I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith 
which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and 
gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2. 20). 

We are not committed to the impossible choice 
between Pseudo-Fundamentalism and naturalistic 
Modernism. Something very different from both 
is certain to emerge out of the present strife and 
confusion. Unless indeed the clash marks the end 
of the age. And even so, history would indicate 
that the close of one zon signalizes the beginning 
of a new zon. As in the past, converging lines 
of development point to the rise of a new grour 


78 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


of “disciples” consisting of Fundamentalists in 
the true sense of the term,—those who have 
experienced the essential truths of the Christian 
religion in their own lives, but who also have rec- 
ognized the formal truths of new discoveries in 
the visible universe of God and above all in the 
still greater universe of His revelation. These 
are the souls who will give heed to Conservatives 
and Progressives alike, because they realize that, 
for the very conservation of its life, to say noth- 
ing of its progress, the Church must have not 
only ecclesiastical “‘priests” of the past but also 
spiritual “prophets” of the future. 


This group has not come to the fore as yet. 
They are still scattered in a Dispersion. They 
are still waiting for the “‘pentecost”’ that shall 
unite them into a vitally organic body. “Yet the 
vision is for many days.” Its realization, how- 
ever, is the hope of a distracted world. Mean- 
while we rest assured that the providence of God 
is perfect and that His promises will not fail. 


“Around our incompleteness, His completeness; 
Around our restlessness, His rest.” 


We may live to see that “even the youths shall 
faint and be weary, and the young men shall ut- 
terly fall,” but also that “they that wait for 
Jehovah shall renew their strength; they shall 


AND MODERNISTS 79 


mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, 
and not be weary; they shall walk-and not faint” 
(Is. 40. 30, 31). 


To employ once more an old but serviceable 
figure, Fundamentalism may be said to represent 
the protecting covering of an acorn that is to fall . 
into the ground and die; Modernism represents 
the frosts which in the providence of God shall 
erack the shell, release the hidden germ of truth, 
and make possible the resurrection of its inhering 
life. The Word of God will supply the nourishing 
soil; the warm rains of His Spirit will provide 
the moisture and sap; the Sun of Righteousness 
will quicken the kernel and cause it to sprout; and 
in the fulness of the time the branches of a tower- 
ing tree will bear the leaves that are for the 
healing of the nations. In that day the Church 
of God “shall be like a tree planted by the streams 
of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its sea- 
son, whose leaf also doth not wither; and what- 
soever he (it) doeth shall prosper” (Ps. 1. 3). 


Glancing back over the traveled road we are 
reminded of a familiar fable, which may serve as 
our summary and terminus: 

A blind man, large of body and strong of limb, 
was groping his uncertain way along a country 
road to a distant village. A small cripple had 


80 FUNDAMENTALISTS 


essayed the same journey earlier in the day, but 
his strength had failed him and he was sitting by 
the roadside in despair of ever arriving at his 
destination. Catching sight of the blind man he 
hailed him and told of his predicament. The re- 
sult of the conference was a proposition by the 
blind man to carry the cripple, with the under- 
standing that the latter direct the way. The offer 
was gratefully accepted, and in due course of time 
the combination came swinging into town, the 
cripple astride the shoulders of the blind man, the 
strength of the one and the eyes of the other serv- 
ing for both. 


“Have ye understood all these things? They say unto 
him, Yea. And he said unto them, Therefore every scribe, 
who has been enrolled as a disciple in the kingdom of the 
heavens and instructed as such, is like unto the master of a 
household, who bringeth out of his stores things both new 
and old” (Mt. 13. 51, 52). 


dy “ } fy 
Hea yan 

rena 

ret 

Gt ‘ 


He OA 
Vala ah her He ahs 
AD APA SRR 
HIN 


Nie J 


» ni 

Lats mi ney 

eh ¥ L 
vt 





Date Due 


eth tar 2 
WL alec.) TONE 
are be ten 
* ere was 
Pe ee ct AS 
” g > 2 e 


ee ae ——}---— 








PRINTED | IN U. S. A. 








01018 2477 


